A10-7700K vs Xeon E3-1240
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E3-1240 outperforms A10-7700K by an impressive 69% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E3-1240 and A10-7700K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1474 | 1823 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.54 | 0.04 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD A-Series (Desktop) |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Kaveri (2014−2015) |
| Release date | 3 April 2011 (13 years ago) | 14 January 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $209 | $152 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E3-1240 has 6250% better value for money than A10-7700K.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E3-1240 and A10-7700K basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 216 mm2 | 245 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 69 °C | 72 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,160 million | 2410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E3-1240 and A10-7700K compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | 1155 | FM2+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E3-1240 and A10-7700K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | SSE1-4a, AVX, AES, FMA4, VT |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E3-1240 and A10-7700K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E3-1240 and A10-7700K are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E3-1240 and A10-7700K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon R7 384 (Kaveri Desktop) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E3-1240 and A10-7700K.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Xeon E3-1240 outperforms A10-7700K by 69% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Xeon E3-1240 outperforms A10-7700K by 69% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.50 | 2.07 |
| Recency | 3 April 2011 | 14 January 2014 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 95 Watt |
Xeon E3-1240 has a 69.1% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more threads, and 18.8% lower power consumption.
A10-7700K, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Xeon E3-1240 is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-7700K in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E3-1240 is a server/workstation processor while A10-7700K is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E3-1240 and A10-7700K, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
